Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Pakistan relations (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. overall consensus was delete, the few keeps' arguments did not go anywhere Nja²⁴⁷ 10:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Pakistan relations

nominating a 2nd time, the first AfD seemed to be more no consensus not keep. and my own search shows a lack of coverage, most coverage is in multilateral context, [1] one maritime agreement does not cut it as a notable relationship and have to consider non resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Relationship not notable per Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_bilateral_relations_articles Habanero-tan (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per first nomination, and multilateral or bilateral a source is a source. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

these articles are specifically about bilateral not multilateral relations, otherwise almost every nation is intraconnected through the UN or world trade organisation. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For these topics, it is the general notability guidelines--not whether the two countries have signed a maritime pact--that determines whether there should be stand-alone article for the subject. And by no stretch of the imagination do the sources cited in the article or its external links suggest that this topic enjoys "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Yilloslime ^T_C 05:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. --68.44.172.57 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — 68.44.172.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No reliable sources adress these non notable relations in any depth. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my suspicion that these articles are being created by people who don't understand the counterintuitive mathematical fact that there are tens of thousands of ways to pair the 250 or so countries of the world, and are on a futile mission unknowingly filling Wikipedia with non-notable "generated" articles. BTW google will do the permutation math for you http://www.google.com/search?q=250+choose+2 Habanero-tan (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90% of these stubs were created by a now banned editor who didn't bother to search for evidence of notability. LibStar (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their relations are significant. Especially Pakistan's attitude to North Cyprus issue. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not seem to have received enough coverage in WP:RS sources to satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of an encyclopedically notable relationship via non-trivial mentions of the relationship in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable trivia. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources other than primary ones (and one a propaganda organ at that) to indicate the notability of the topic as a whole. The article certainly hasn't improved any since the last AfD, either. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.